Pre Emptive war with Iraq sets a dangerous precedent...thoughts?

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Kytro

After having a look at those resolutions I find it concerning that the US should take it upon itself to decide if the resolution had been violated or not.

There is no point to creating resolutions if the authority of the governing body is displaced

Keep it on subject please.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Keep it on subject please.

The legality of the war isn't relevant to if it sets a dangerous precedent or not?

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Really, what exactly clause did they violate?
I have never even seen this ceasefire

Iraq was required to destroy all chemical, biological, nuclear weapons and programs and to destroy all long range rockets and drones. And then give 100% full access to the UN to prove that distruction.


From 1991-1995 they hid a full offensive biological weapons program.
They hid their long range drones until 1998 (desert fox bombing mission uncovered a buildind full of them)
They still had long range missiles in 2003.
And everyone is in agreement they never gave 100% full access to the UN.

They pretty much failed on every single clause.

[Thorgrim]

this is mostly on-topic considering it's hard to see any justification for pre-emptive war without ANY breaking of a cease-fire or UN resolution in their favor, etc

I mean, even with Iran, we'd claim they broke UN resolutions, but if we invaded like...Canada...how the hell could we justify that?

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Kytro

The legality of the war isn't relevant to if it sets a dangerous precedent or not?

This thread is clearly about preemptive action, this is NOT for debating the legality of the Iraq war, PERIOD.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

this is mostly on-topic considering it's hard to see any justification for pre-emptive war without ANY breaking of a cease-fire or UN resolution in their favor, etc

I mean, even with Iran, we'd claim they broke UN resolutions, but if we invaded like...Canada...how the hell could we justify that?

At what point would you say preemption is ok with Iran or N Korea? Or would it ever be ok?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

At what point would you say preemption is ok with Iran or N Korea? Or would it ever be ok?

N Korea is subject to a UN cease-fire, and the UN's IAEA is involved

Iran, as I said, has been found violating not only the UN's IAEA but UN resolutions

However, as Iran as pointed out, the UN also could move a resolution under anti-nuke treatites the US signed, because the US has not/was not disarming its vast nuclear arsenal fast enough

i mean...there is a difference between some legal ground (ie 2003 iraq) and NO legal ground (ie Soviet Union invading Poland 1939...even if you stretch back in partitian claims, that was by czarist russia and they had given up such rights in the treaty of versailles)

I think there's almost always a day, unless extreme circumstances in which case we should submit the secretary defense or something to the ICC and overwhelming extraordinary evidence would clear him

In such case, we should be able to get a resolution out...if the world won't support us, well then we probably don't have a good case...they did support us in 1991, and yet not in 2003...which war worked and which one didnt?

[mididoctors]

US intervention in Iraq was almost inevitable pre-emptive or not.

US geopolitical power was/is being eroded by basic economic forces creating a optimization in the distribution of resources.

in a twit of fates its a "anti-competive" macro-regulatory imposition of non efficient market manipulations..

the essence of US intervention is to keep energy resource flowing on the high sea rather than consumerised in pipelines to chinese/pakistani-indian/european markets.

global market force will tend to move consumption closer to resource sources. this is especially true off NG which is far more efficient than pressurising it as LNG in tankers and moving it from eurasia to the new world

US policy for 50 yers has been "pro active" and "pre emptive"

the precedent WAS set and it IS dangerous. Direct US intervention has become increasing more embroiled in time as the distortions it created became increasingly apparent and unworkable.

unworkable is the useful term here.. even the "money" is working against US interests now

Boris
London

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

N Korea is subject to a UN cease-fire, and the UN's IAEA is involved

Iran, as I said, has been found violating not only the UN's IAEA but UN resolutions

However, as Iran as pointed out, the UN also could move a resolution under anti-nuke treatites the US signed, because the US has not/was not disarming its vast nuclear arsenal fast enough

i mean...there is a difference between some legal ground (ie 2003 iraq) and NO legal ground (ie Soviet Union invading Poland 1939...even if you stretch back in partitian claims, that was by czarist russia and they had given up such rights in the treaty of versailles)

I think there's almost always a day, unless extreme circumstances in which case we should submit the secretary defense or something to the ICC and overwhelming extraordinary evidence would clear him

In such case, we should be able to get a resolution out...if the world won't support us, well then we probably don't have a good case...they did support us in 1991, and yet not in 2003...which war worked and which one didnt?

So at what point would preemptive action against Iran or N Korea be justified?

If N Korea launched a new ICBM that actually worked and crashed within 200 miles of the west coast, Hawaii or Alaska would that be justification in your mind for precision airstrikes? Or even invasion?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

So at what point would preemptive action against Iran or N Korea be justified?

If N Korea launched a new ICBM that actually worked and crashed within 200 miles of the west coast, Hawaii or Alaska would that be justification in your mind for precision airstrikes? Or even invasion?

if it was like a dumby warhead that landed (intentionally)harmlessly in the ocean...I don't think a "justified" response would be military strikes that killed North Koreans...certainly not pre-emptive war (like an invasion or total war air campaign)

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

if it was like a dumby warhead that landed (intentionally)harmlessly in the ocean...I don't think a "justified" response would be military strikes that killed North Koreans...certainly not pre-emptive war (like an invasion or total war air campaign)

So you're saying wait until they actually get one to a city? ie Seattle or LA then war or airstrikes would be justified?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

So you're saying wait until they actually get one to a city? ie Seattle or LA then war or airstrikes would be justified?

Showing strength by having an empty missle sink into international waters is a lot different than striking a US city

You are treating nations like terrorists...nations want power and prestige...not to only terrorize

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

So at what point would preemptive action against Iran or N Korea be justified?

If N Korea launched a new ICBM that actually worked and crashed within 200 miles of the west coast, Hawaii or Alaska would that be justification in your mind for precision airstrikes? Or even invasion?

If it was a declared test, no that wouldnt be enough justification. We havent invaded Russia or China for having ICBMs, why would we invade NK ?

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Showing strength by having an empty missle sink into international waters is a lot different than striking a US city

You are treating nations like terrorists...nations want power and prestige...not to only terrorize

Yes I agree, but where do you draw the line between immenent threat and preempting it vs waiting till your struck?

If the missile is aimed in the general direction of the US and falls short of its target by a few hundred miles thats disturbing to me. Especially considering we may not ever find the war head it could easily sink to the bottom of the pacific and be moved via ocean currents. So if a missle were to fall into the ocean how do we know what was on it?


I think you're point about power and prestige is spot on.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

If it was a declared test, no that wouldnt be enough justification. We havent invaded Russia or China for having ICBMs, why would we invade NK ?

I'm not trying to justify it, I'm trying to make some points that others have made to me. I created this thread to have a discussion on these very things. Don't think I'm trying to justify an action past/present/future because at this point I'm just gathering different POVs.

While I know how I feel I dont necessarily want to inject that into the thread just yet.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

This thread is clearly about preemptive action, this is NOT for debating the legality of the Iraq war, PERIOD.

Right but the status of the action being preemptive or not was brought up.

If we are talking purely about *any* preemptive action, then there needs to be clear and concise evidence of a direct threat.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Right but the status of the action being preemptive or not was brought up.

If we are talking purely about *any* preemptive action, then there needs to be clear and concise evidence of a direct threat.

Ok, I definately agree with you,b ut what constitutes a direct threat? Or concise evidence? See my missile example that thorg, 66 and I are discussing.

[Thorgrim]

direct threat is something that passes the CIA 100%, no dissent or question, unlike 2003, and its immediete...like if Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda, WMD, and a plan to distribute...then I'd say it's a serious option (its pretty late so dont hold me to this)

But the CIA disputed the al qaeda ties...raised doubts about WMD, and certainly told cheney there was NO WORKING RELATIONSHIP

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

direct threat is something that passes the CIA 100%, no dissent or question, unlike 2003, and its immediete...like if Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda, WMD, and a plan to distribute...then I'd say it's a serious option (its pretty late so dont hold me to this)

But the CIA disputed the al qaeda ties...raised doubts about WMD, and certainly told cheney there was NO WORKING RELATIONSHIP

Ok, so for N Korea if a missile test were conducted and that missile went into US territory do we retaliate or not?

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Ok, I definately agree with you,b ut what constitutes a direct threat? Or concise evidence? See my missile example that thorg, 66 and I are discussing.

Capability is certainly part of threat assessment, but primarily it is the likelihood of an attack.

Some nations posses the ability to strike the US (some still could with a shield in place). Does this make a direct threat?

The missile example is a little different because of the aggressive posture of firing a weapon into / very close to US territory.